Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

"Subsidizing freight railroad mainline electrification is indeed infrastructure and would bring about measurable benefits." um, freight railroads are already electric ya ignoramus. trains just don't cut it over great distances such as Canada or the US. Trains are fine for Europe, Japan and the NE corridor, in other words for short distances. A 200 MPH train eill not beat a 400 MPH plane.

 

No high speed passenger rail operation makes a profit anywhere in the world, they are all heavily subsidized. In the northeast corridor if Amtrak were to shut down, the whole region would be gridlocked worse that LA at rush hour, the road and air transport capacity are not there to take up the slack.

 

And just how much does the federal government subsidize the airline industry, TSA, Air Traffic Control. Airports? Taxpayers fund a great deal of that. Let air passengers fund it completely and air traffic will become much more expensive making high speed rail much more attractive.

 

And who pays to subsidize the infrastructure that the airlines use? Runways, airports, Air traffic control? it's not the paying passengers, but the taxpayer. Take those subsidies away, and rail could become quite competitive.

 

The thread is a waste of time. You are exactly right.

- - - Updated - - -

just curious if you think Amtrak owns the rails they travel on?

 

Their mothers never told them that money doesn't grow on trees.

 

Guess you never heard of taxes. Why would you, you don't pay any.

 

Wouldn't it make much more sense to make a car that can ride the highway system like a train can a track? Doh.....that is already being designed. Probably be out and roads upgraded before a dollar is spent on rail.

 

There it is, ding, ding, ding... Ask yourself, How many airplanes fly a day? Then ask yourself how many trains can run on one track? And you need a return track. How many people can one plane carry? How many people would one train carry? Don't you just have to laugh at the ignorance of the left?

 

You wouldn't know that from the railroad retirees that I know!

- - - Updated - - -

Non sequiter!

 

Spending on infrastructure is worthwhile if it has some sort of economic benefit, like the interstate highway system did. If there is no purpose to it, it's just a boondoggle.

I've been waiting for someone to make the case on the economic benefits to high speed rail, and so far, no one has even bothered. It just looks cool and that's it. So go ahead, make the case.

 

This was a perfect example of rich interests trying to game state funding to make themselves even more rich. The funding for the Florida constitutional amendment came mostly from one person, Lakeland businessman C.C. "Doc" Dockery.

 

No, liberals are the idiots. The expanse of fthe US makes HSR STUPID. 50 million dollars per MILE of track? Who would be the MORON who would support that??

And - with the pace of technology - how long before we discover how to harness anti-gravitational fields, removing the the need for any form of mass transit which is harnessed to ground?

Forward thinking indeed. Leftist clowns can't see past their own noses.

 

I don't know, there are plenty of idiots who'll spend 350 million for one aircraft to fight enemies which don't exist.

Who's the moron?

And the right wing morons can't see past their colon.

 

Yea, he owned all the land for the right of way. Just like JD Alexanders family stands to gain from the creation of Florida Poly U, his family owns all the property surrounding the unneeded university's property.

- - - Updated - - -

Then why did Republicans oppose it's creation when it was proposed by a Republican President?

You ain't looking to hard then.

 

In all the history of the airline industry, it has yet to turn a profit. Apparently that fact has escaped you rocket scientists.

 

I didn't know it was opposed by Republicans. It was a project of a Republican President.

Since you know more about Republican opposition to the Interstate Highway system than I do, what were the Republican arguments against it? What was the vote count?

 

SouthWest has been profitable for 40 years in a row.

And before you cluck about "not without subsidies through public financing of airports/etc", let's just put your idiocy into perspective.

You're all about public financing for railways, but you wish to criticize the airline industry for lack of profitability - even though CLEARLY air travel is a form of transportation which requires and demands public infrastructure. There are no HSR systems the world over which are profitable - yet you choose to attack airlines for not being profitable.

Well...that's interesting. Of course, airlines can get me across country 10x quicker than rail. Airlines move 100x more people.

So what are you arguing for, again? You wish us to pour more money into INCREASINGLY inefficient modes of transportation?

For the subsidy needed for many of these train lines, >>>Profanity filter bypass removed<<< CAR.

 

I'm really curious what your job is and why we should build a bullet train network for you that will take 200 years to make back its cost.

 

They are the only American airliner to post consistent profit (which I mentioned). Now, come up with an excuse for why all the other MAJOR airlines are consistently bankrupt.

Transportation infrastructure isn't supposed to be profitable. Toll roads aren't profitable either, LOL.

There are trains in this world that can reach 300 mph. Hell, the French TGV made 357 mph on RAIL (not even Maglev, which is viable for sure).

Wow, SO false. Not only do airlines have SMALLER capacity than trains, but airlines are far more susceptible to weather issues, air traffic, terrorism, and the horrible inefficiency of hub-and-spoke routing. How many people get stranded when ONE major airport has a single issue?

You haven't proven that it is inefficient other than people's perception of it. The speed is the best case for airlines in cross-country travel, but an airline can't outspeed an HSR under 500 miles. 500-1000 mile trips are a wash. You didn't touch on the amount of people per unit of energy a train uses vs. plane (obvious benefit).

Your point? You subsidize public transportation (street cars, trains, buses) with every gallon of gas you buy.

 

Do the work. It's not a secret.

 

Because 200 years from now it becomes a worthwhile investment. You answered your own question.

Oh, don't forget the hundreds of thousands of people that will be required to build it and the millions of riders it will have over that 200 years. The purpose of infrastructure is to service other areas of our economy, not to turn a profit.

 

No, in 200 years they will want to build a hyperloop or some kind of carbon nano-fiber rail-car system. So that time frame doesn't justify anything.

 

They don't think big.

This is just another option for infrastructure, and a damn good one.

As we go forward, this will be increasingly useful because most population growth in this country will be in cities. If you have a HSR connection in every downtown urban center, you get an obvious link between cities that we haven't had before. Get in and out of cities via car and air is getting worse every day. Plus.. trains are more comfortable. Riding the Amtrak is much more comfortable than driving, flying, or riding a bus (ew). Hell, you even get a plug for your electronics.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you think so small?

We have the engineering talent in this country to START with a hyper-loop hybrid train. Since when is that out of the question?